Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Hinkler may have found his abacus there in his drawer. But I will say this, and I'm just quoting him: $5 billion and then $10 billion. That's $15 billion in anyone's mathematics.

Anyway, let's leave that, because he did touch on the critical areas of investment, and they are important. They're actually critical to Australia's future: resources; the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors; transport; medical science; renewables and low-emission technologies; defence capability; and enabling capabilities, which are best described as including support for key enabling capabilities across engineering, data science, software development and areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics and quantum, which are so important now as advanced technologies. These are key areas that you would think that every member in this place would get around and support, given their critical nature to Australia's future.

But I'll come to that later, because this National Reconstruction Fund is also about jobs—secure, local, well-paid jobs for Australians, something that people in my electorate of Wills know all too well. Many people in the north of my electorate worked at the Ford factory in Broadmeadows, and they lost their jobs when it shut down in 2016. This fund is about rebuilding manufacturing in our country. It's about bringing manufacturing back home, unlike those opposite, who tore through manufacturing, particularly car manufacturing. A previous speaker had the audacity to try and claim it was a Labor government's fault when they themselves ripped out the guts of car manufacturing in this country. It was absolutely disgraceful, and I think the Treasurer at the time went on to smoke a cigar celebrating that effort, if I could call it that.

This is about people's livelihoods, their jobs. It's about making things here again and setting up Australia as a leader in advanced manufacturing. It's about our self-reliance and our sovereign capability. We saw during the difficult period that we all went through when COVID was at its peak in the last couple of years that it exposed issues such as supply chains and resilience in those supply chains. It showed that we were possibly too reliant on some supply chains that were exposed. COVID impacted those supply chains, and Australia was not prepared as we should have been. We as a government are doing something about that. It's a big part of the National Reconstruction Fund.

We took the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund to the election in May last year. We have a mandate, and now we are delivering on our commitment to the Australian people. The Albanese Labor government is focused on renewing, revitalising and rebuilding Australia's manufacturing industry for Australians, for small-business owners, for the regions and for jobs. We're setting Australians up for the future, investing in jobs and in making things here again.

Those opposite have done nothing in government to invest in Aussie manufacturing over nine long years. As I referred to, they baited the Australian car industry into leaving the country, and they had nine industry ministers in nine years. How could any one of those ministers even get on top of the portfolio? By the time they finished reading their briefs, they were out the door and the next person came in. If that wasn't bad enough, now, in opposition, they're playing the role of wreckers. They're opposing this fund.

What really gets to me—what really grates—is that they are putting our national security at risk in doing this. The Minister for Industry and Science pointed out that very fact this week. The opposition don't seem to care that a big part of this fund is dedicated to advancing defence capability that's critical to Australia's preparedness for AUKUS and for working with our partners, such as those in the Quad. They don't care. They just want the politics of this. They just want to oppose. They're not interested in our national security. They're not interested in our national interests. It's all short-term politics. The leopard hasn't changed its spots. That's what they were like in government. It was all about the short-term political message, not about the long-term national interest.

I remind those opposite that among our partners—our regional partners, our allies, our friends—there is an expectation that Australia come to the table with our efforts on technology and technological developments and advancements—with our technological strength. These developments are paramount to our national security and our national interests. The minister for industry noted that this National Reconstruction Fund is crucial to strengthening both our economic and national security long term. That's right; it's about the long term. It's not about the newspaper report the next day, which the opposition is so fond of trying to win.

Yet despite the facts, the important facts, that $2 billion of this National Reconstruction Fund is going to be pointed towards critical technology—AI, quantum technology, critical minerals, all of which are very important for, as I said, the work we're doing with our international partners and our allies both in the Quad and in our AUKUS efforts on advanced capability—the coalition are still happy to stand in the way of this bill, to oppose it. They talk a big game on national security. It's a big talk but, when they have the opportunity to walk the walk, they go and oppose. They go for the short-term political message. That's not in Australia's national interest. That's not standing up for our national security.

The fact those opposite are actively opposing this National Reconstruction Fund is quite extraordinary. It's extraordinary, given their rhetoric, and that needs to be called out. Because on one side of the mouth they talk about our national security and getting our defence capability and they make a big song and dance about that and then, on the other, they oppose the funding that will go towards those advanced capabilities. It's extraordinary. I'm interested to know, from the opposition, what part of this National Reconstruction Fund do they actually oppose? Is it investment in renewable technology? Because they've been pretty much opposed to that right from the beginning. That could be it. Is it an opposition to investment in advanced manufacturing capabilities? Is that what it is? Don't they think we can be that advanced? Don't they think we have the technology or the technical ability, the workforce? Is that what it is—they're opposed to advanced manufacturing in this country? Because that is what this fund is largely about—getting that up and running, and really turbo charging it. Are they opposed to that? Maybe not. Maybe they're opposed to good secure local jobs for Australians. Maybe, given the way they killed the car manufacturing industry in this country and saw thousands of jobs walk out the door and thousands of Australians lose their jobs in manufacturing, and then smoked a cigar about it in celebration, they're opposed to the job creation that comes out of this fund. Maybe that's what it is. I'm trying to guess here because I haven't really heard any good reason. Are they opposed to creating jobs? Because this fund is also going to create new jobs in new and advanced manufacturing, in technology, in exciting new sectors. Maybe they're opposed to creating jobs; they don't like that. Maybe not. Maybe they're opposed to growing the economy. Maybe they don't want Australia to succeed. That would be a poor position to take as an opposition—let's prevent the growth of the Australian economy by killing this fund. That's pretty cynical if that's what they're doing it for. Let me ask this: Are they opposed to making our supply chains more resilient, which is a big part of this fund and the investment that goes to it? Is that what it is? Because we all saw how exposed our supply chains were over the last couple of years, so it really shocks me that those opposite would be opposed to making those supply chains that we are so reliant on more resilient. It could be all of the above. It could be one or two of them. Whatever their reasoning is, it is really making it harder for Australians to get those jobs and do the things we need to do in the coming decade. They are all opposition and no policy.

I know it might be useless, it may be futile, there might be no point in it, but I ask the opposition to rethink their position. Act in good faith. Negotiate on some amendments, if that's what it is. But outright opposition to the National Reconstruction Fund is outright opposition to advancing Australia and its national interests—that's what it is. And they will be called out for it; the opposition will be called out for the wrecking ball they're putting to this bill, the wrecking ball they're putting to Australian jobs and the wrecking ball they're putting to our advanced capability and our manufacturing in this country. I ask them to rethink.

There are good members on the other side. They care about Australia's future. They care about Australia's national interest. They would know that $15 billion invested in manufacturing, in advanced manufacturing, in technology, in capability and in supply chain resilience is good for Australia. Maybe they'll have the courage in their party room to stand up to their leader and say: 'No, we should negotiate. Let's try and put up an amendment or something but we should back this bill in because it's good for Australia, because it's good for our constituents.' To them: I'm asking you to back Australian made. I'm asking you to back Australian jobs. I'm asking you to back the Australian economy. I'm asking you to do the right thing and not oppose the National Reconstruction Fund.

See this speech in context